4Th Grade California Regions Project - PowerPoint by xbr21121


More Info
									     Successful Evaluation
     Strategies: California

Sharon Sugerman, MS, RD, FADA
•Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section;
 California Department of Public Health
February 21, 2008
Network for a Healthy California: A Powerful
Infrastructure to Reduce Chronic Disease Risk
138 projects, 11 regions
The Network “pillars”
↑ Fruit and Vegetable
↑ Physical Activity
↓ Food Insecurity
↓ Chronic Disease
Employs a comprehensive
  social marketing approach,
  framed around the social-
  ecological model
 Network for a Healthy California:
         Statewide Interventions
• 3 targeted population campaigns:
    – Children’s Power Play! Campaign – 11 Regions
    – Latino Campaign – 9 Regions
    – African-American Campaign – 6 Regions
• Retail and Worksite programs carry intervention further
  into the community
• 11 Regional Collaboratives –combine area resources
  to bring about positive change
• Providing FSNE in multiple channels, multiple methods
• ~10,000 eligible sites – low- resource schools and pre-
  schools, food closets/pantries/banks, community
  clinics, low-income housing sites, grocery stores,
  worksites, festivals, health fairs, etc.
• Champions for Change multi-media campaign
Champion Moms TV, Radio, Outdoor,
    Direct Mail, Consumer Web

  Empowering, Champions, Change Agents
Fruits & Vegetable School-Based
Education – Cafeteria and Classroom
Power Play! School Idea & Resource
• 4th & 5th grade versions
• 10 F/V and PA activities
• Based on 2005 Dietary
  Guidelines for Americans
• Linked to California Content
• Student handouts in both
  English and Spanish and
  student workbooks in
• Impact evaluation study
                   Core Elements
•   Educator newsletters
•   Menu slicks
•   Family newsletters
•   Press release templates
•   Poster (must be ordered)
•   Strategies
•   Resources
•   Major process evaluation and individual
    school impact evaluation projects
Network Approaches to Evaluation
• Surveillance – statewide population-based surveys, internal & external
• Process evaluation/activity tracking – Semi-Annual Activity Reporting
  (SAAR), Regional Network SAAR
• Formative – New project development & feedback
• Impact/outcome evaluation to evaluate and improve the operation of a
  given local project intervention
• Impact/outcome evaluation to rigorously test a social marketing
  campaign controlled intervention developed by the State
• Media/Communications strategy evaluation – Benchmark
• Case Studies – Non-profit LIAs, Regional Nutrition Networks
• Special Tools to enable evaluation – GIS and CX3 (Communities of
  Excellence); Compendium of validated tools; Food Behavior Checklist;
  Fruit and Vegetable Checklist
• Support of external research projects
• Technical assistance to awardees and collaboratives who request
  help in evaluating their projects
Evaluation of CPNS Projects:
Key Behavioral Outcomes
• Fruit and vegetable consumption and
  determinants in adults and children/youth,
  ages 9 and older, to recommended levels
• Daily physical activity and determinants to at least 30
  minutes in adults and 60 minutes in children and youth
• Access to and utilization of appropriate food
  assistance programs, especially Food Stamps
  Surveillance research data CPNS
  surveys are used to:
…biennially monitor the current dietary and physical
 activity practices, and related habits, attitudes, and
 beliefs of Californians
   – California Dietary Practices Survey
       • CDPS          Adults > 18 years
   – California Teen Eating, Exercise, and Nutrition
       • CalTEENS       Teens age 12 – 17 years
   – California Children’s Healthy Eating and
     Exercise Practices Survey
       • CalCHEEPS Children age 9 – 11 years
Surveillance – The challenge--and need--for funding
the comparison group
   Change in mean fruit and vegetable consumption,
              California adults, 1997-2005
      5                               4.9
        4   3.9                                 3.9   than
                                                      $15,000 -
        3         3.1                                 24,999

                                                      $25,000 -
      2.5                                             34,999

        2                                             $35,000 -
              1997      1999   2001   2003   2005

Source: California Dietary Practices Survey, CPNS, CDPH
– Network-planned; full control of questions
Surveillance – Maximizing external
resources - BRFSS

Which of the following categories best
 describes your annual household income
 from all sources? Less than $10,000;
 $10,000 to less than $15,000; $15,000 to
 less than $20,000; $20,000 to less than
 $25,000; $25,000 to less than $35,000;
 $35,000 to less than $50,000; $50,000 to
 less than $75,000; $75,000 to $100,000 or
 over $100,000?

Nationally, data is analyzed by these income
Surveillance – Maximizing external
resources - BRFSS
THRESHO2 - Is your annual household income above
  ________ (table look up for income and household
  size)? (Income threshold is used for statistical
  purposes.) 2007 FPL HH1 = 9,800; 19,600; 29,400
  for 100, 200, and 300% FPL
      So, if someone from a one-person household
  answers ―less than $10,000,‖ to the prior question
  about your annual HH income, the next question,
  is it above $9,800 lets them be categorized as
  above or below 100% FPL
We worked with our state BRFSS administrators to
  build the threshold cut-points for 130% and 185%
  FPL into this question and added ―use of FSP past
  12 months‖ question to BRFSS
Process Evaluation
CNN process evaluation:
• Includes activity tracking that
  encompasses the nine social marketing
  tools Network emphasizes
• Allows for the merging of similar
  information from a large variety of
• Helps programs and regions to measure
  their own progress
Semi-Annual Activity Report
• Program information
• Summary of program activities
• Materials distributed
• Partnership development
• Formative research and planning
Social Marketing Activities as Reported by the
Local and Regional Semi-Annual Activity Report
                                    All Local Contractors California Statewide
                Reach of Sales Promotions Activities for Federal Fiscal Year 07 (Page 1 of 2)
                                                October 1 -                 April 1 -
  Reporting Period                               March 31                 September 30                   Year Totals
                                                                                  Number of
                                                       Number of                       s          Total
                                       Number of      Participants   Number of    (Consumer     Number of         Total
                                        Events /       (Consumer      Events /    Impression     Events /       Consumer
  Activity                             Activities     Impressions)   Activities        s)       Activities     Impressions
  LOCAL CONTRACTS                         124                           133
  Grocery Stores
  # taste tests at grocery stores         61             7,305          37          20,660         98             27,965
  # grocery store tours                   35              860           57          1,316          92             2,176
  # other grocery promotions              86             17,819         75          24,290         161            42,109
  Total Grocery Store Events              182            25,984         169         46,266         351            72,250
  Farmer's Markets
  # farmer's market taste tests           67             45,991         108         13,339         175            59,330
  # farmer's market tours                 74             1,500          125         4,812          199            6,312
  # other farmers market events           127            18,319         160         17,628         287            35,947
  Total Farmers Market Events             268            65,810         393         35,779         661           101,589

  Reach of Sales Promotions Activities continued on the next page
2005 Regional Summary Report for the
Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (BRFS) & Social
Marketing Activities as Reported by the Local and
Regional Semi-Annual Activity Report (SAAR)
   2005 Regional Summary Report
   2005 Regional Summary Report for the Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (BRFS) & Social Marketing Activities as Reported by the Local and Regional Semi-Annual Activity
          Report (SAAR)

   This report is divided into two data collection parts: 2005 BRFS data and FFY 2005 SAAR Data. The report provides a picture of behaviors and nutrition education activities in each
            of the 11 California Nutrition Network regions, and for the State of California as a whole. The report begins with BRFS data that provides a profile of the population on
            behaviors/conditions that the Network and Collaborative interventions and activities address: fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, obesity, obesity +
            overweight, and food insecurity. The second portion presents each region’s California Nutrition Network for Healthy Active Families activities for the Federal Fiscal Year
            2005 (October 1, 2004 – September 30, 2005) as reported by the Local and Regional Nutrition Network (RNN) SAARs.

   Section 1 - Introduction Information

   Section 2 - A comparison of California Regional Nutrition Networks using the 2005 BRFSS
   Section 3 - Social Marketing Summary Report by Region - Federal Fiscal Year 2005
   Section 4 - List of all Contractors
   Section 5 - FFY 2005 All LIA Total Tables
   Section 6 - FFY 2005 All RNN Total Tables
   Section 7 - Bay Area LIAs
   Section 8 - Bay Area RNN
   Section 9 - Central Coast LIAs
   Section 10 - Central Coast RNN
   Section 11 - Central Valley LIAs
Formative Evaluation

      • Development of social marketing
        campaigns, materials, and
      • Exploration of new target population
        or health problem
      • Data sources: focus groups, key
        informant interviews, pilot tests,
        satisfaction surveys
Impact Evaluation Studies of Local
Contractor Interventions
• Contractors receiving $350,000+
• Measure behavior or behavioral determinant, generally
  relating to FV
• Not only knowledge – must include psychosocial
  variable, e.g. self-efficacy, preferences
• Most recently conducted by 48 contractors
• Many findings have been positive
• Standardized general methods, but, since
  interventions differ, it is difficult to summarize findings
  across contractors even with increased use of
  validated, standardized measures
• Need to combine with more scope-of-work-specific
  process measures to identify dosage, content
                   Number of Classes
               40,000                                                             9   7

# of Classes




               10,000                                                  4
                                            1                    5 ,14
                              7          81
                5,000      26          2,              2
                         1,                          98                                        5
                        College /   Co. Office of   First 5   Health Dept.   School /     Cooperative
                         Univ.          Ed.                                  District      Extension
  Behavioral Outcomes Measured

                      Number of contractors that measured
                              change in behavior
                       03-04    04-05     05-06    06-07
                      (n=12)   (n=24)    (n=47)   (n=48)
Fruit and vegetable
                        1        7        22        35
Physical activity                          5         2

  Cognitive Indicators of Success
                               # that measured
        Factor                 change in factor
                       03-04   04-05     05-06    06-07
Food preferences        10      13        22       30

Familiarity             1                  2       3

Self-efficacy           3       4         18       27

Outcome expectations            2          2       5

PA preferences          0       1                  0

Sample Food Preferences
 How much do you like these fruits? Please check  your answer.

                  I do not like         I like this a little
                                                               I like this a lot   I don’t know
                       this                                                         what this is

                         2                   3                      4                 1   
 1. Apple

           Response coding

Cullen K, Baranowski T, et al. Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice,
and vegetables influence children's dietary behavior. Health Educ Behav 2003, 30(5): 615-26. 23
                        Results 05-07 – Consumption
                                  Change in Consumption (range 0-15)

vegetables last 24 hours
Mean # times ate fruit or


                            9            7.56                          7.33     7.91

                                                   0.85                                0.58
                                        2005-06                              2006-07
                                   (n=1,322), p<.001                      n=2,018, p<.001

                                                Pre-test   Post-test   Difference
                     Biggest challenges for evaluating children – inadequate instruments
Impact Evaluation: Adult
• Biggest challenges:
   – Matching for pre-post; inadequate numbers of repeated
     encounters by clients
   – “You don’t have a validated instrument for our intervention
     or for our target audience”
• More short, validated consumption measures exist for
  adults, but may not be appropriate; more “predictors”
  instruments are needed
• Network co-funded with California Extension turning an
  orally-administered Food Behavior Checklist developed
  and validated by Marilyn Townsend into cognitively
  tested, validated, low literacy, full-color illustrated
   – 16-item Food Behavior Checklist
   – 7-item FV-only Checklist
• http://townsendlab.ucdavis.edu/
Sample Food Preferences

Cullen K, Baranowski T, et al. Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice,
and vegetables influence children's dietary behavior. Health Educ Behav 2003, 30(5): 615-26. 26
Evaluating Communications
• Benchmark Survey
  – Annual
  – RDD Food Stamp and (when non-USDA
    funding available), general population and mall-
    intercept low-income 130-185% FPL
    populations; mothers
  – Exposure to media messaging – TV, radio, and
  – Exposure to other CPNS programming
  – FV and PA behavior, attitudes, opinions, norms
• Grassroots Direct Mail Intervention
  – Quasi-experimental impact evaluation
Case Studies
• When more qualitative, descriptive information will
  provide the most through picture:
   – Reaching the Other Eligible Californians: California
     Association of Food Banks’(CAFB) Food Stamp
     Outreach Project
   – A Case Study of Eight Food Security Nutrition Education
   – Central Valley Health Network’s (CVHN) Nutrition
     Education Non-profit Demonstration Project: A Case
     Study Report
• Currently in progress:
   – Nutrition Education and Farm to School Programs: A
     Case Study Report
 Process and Impact Evaluation Studies
 of New CPNS Interventions and
• Formal evaluations are conducted of specific
  interventions and curricula
• Formal evaluations are conducted to see if a program
  works in specific channels

   – Very important for channels that are new to public
   – Also vital if there are plans to widely disseminate the
      • African American Fruit, Vegetable and Physical
        Activity Toolbox for Community Educators
      • School Idea and Resource Kit
      • Harvest of the Month Evaluation
      • Food Stamp Office Resource Kit
     Bringing together the FFY 2007
     and the FFY 2007 Final Report -
• Local Project Data Summaries
• State Level Data Summaries
   – Unduplicated Counts and Impressions
• Section B. Final Report Summary for Evaluations

  Section B. Final Report Summary for Evaluations.
  Provide the information requested below for any significant
  evaluation efforts (costing greater than $400,000) that were
  completed during the previous year.
   – No single State or Local project cost >
   – All summaries completed by State staff
Bringing together the FFY 2007
and the FFY 2007 Final Report –
           Section B
 Section B: State Nutrition Education Final Report Summary FYY 07

  Section B. Final Report Summary for Evaluations.
  Provide the information requested below for any significant evaluation efforts

  Unduplicated Counts and Impressions
  (costing greater than $400,000) that were completed during the previous year.

 1. Name of Project or Social Marketing Campaign
 If multiple projects or campaigns were part of a single impact evaluation, please list
       them all.

 2. Key Evaluation 32)
 Identify each impact being assessed by the evaluations. For example are FSNE participants
       more likely than non-participants to report they intend to increase their fruit and
       vegetable intake? Or do a greater proportion of FSNE participants choose low-fat
       (1% or skim) milk in the school cafeteria compared to non-participants?
Bringing together the FFY 2007 and the FFY 2007
Final Report –Evaluation Projects & Stakeholders
• Summary of Outcome/Impact Evaluations - FV
    consumption; variety of psycho-social predictors of FV
    behaviors; conducted by 48 diverse Local Projects – USDA,
    Local Contractors, Community Development Unit
•   Benchmark Survey – Media recall, psycho-social predictors
    of FV/PA behaviors, saliency - USDA, Communications Unit
•   School Idea and Resource Kit (SIRK) Psycho-social
    predictors of FV/PA behaviors – USDA, Power Play!
    Campaign, educators
•   Worksite Fruit Snack Study – FV consumption; psycho-
    social predictors – USDA, Worksite Campaign, CDPH worksite
•   Food Stamp Office Resource Kit Evaluation – Intercept
    interview – video recall and intention; Observation of behavior
    – USDA, DSS, local contractors, other interested states
GIS - http://www.cnngis.org/
A Research Tool
• Interactive, internet-based Geographic Information
  System (GIS) that allows users to view and query
  mapped nutrition data
• Used for identifying FSNE-eligible populations
  of interest
• Data layers include, among others:
   – Nutrition and school health programs
   – WIC grocery stores and other local nutrition resources
   – Demographics (race and spoken language) of general
     and at-risk populations
   – RNN regions
   – Political (senate and assembly) districts
   – Grocery stores, restaurants, and fast food places
                 Pop-Up Box

A pop-up box should appear.
CX3 – Communities of Excellence -
• A planning model to assess communities
  in relation to a variety of obesity prevention
  benchmarks known as community
  indicators and assets.
• 3 = nutrition, physical activity and obesity
• Standardized indicators & assets – big
• Set standards of excellence.
Creating CX3
• 151 Indicators             • 44 Assets organized
  organized in 6 Community     into:

  –   Neighborhood              – Health department
  –   Preschool                   infrastructure
  –   School                    – Political will
  –   After-school              – Community
  –   Worksite                    infrastructure
  –   Government
Contracted Research
• These are projects that address emerging issues,
  but require time or expertise beyond what is
  available in-house
• Examples:
   – The Economic Costs of Physical Inactivity, Obesity
     and Overweight in California Adults (April 2005)
   – Does 5 a Day Pay?
• Influencing the field without having to collect the
• Used for overarching research and individual
In-House Consultation:
Facts and Figures
• Press releases
• LIA questions
• RN project evaluations – case study approach
• Grant applicant requests
• Information for the department and reporters
• Information for the Chief
• Training and meeting evaluations
A Key Evaluation Question
How to most effectively
 evaluate the combined efforts
 of local projects, targeted
 campaigns and media?
RWJF interviews held with
 “experts in the field” during
 2007 – report in progress
For More on Interventions and
Evaluation, Please Visit Us—
For partners, professionals and links to campaigns,
  programs and resources —

In particular, the Research and Evaluation web pages

New and growing! Consumer educational material for
  parents and youth, in English and Spanish –


To top